Talk:Metapotence/@comment-30165589-20171003142429/@comment-29564364-20171106190358
@Nekron2 «Well the point of totallity connection proves that omnilocks are immune to author authority.» «Even if verse means fiction and not omniverse then also either way you have been proven wrong as due to being unbound to the verse an omnilock automatically becomes immune to the author's control.» Except that it doesn't prove anything since it's based on the unproven premise that characters can exit their Verse, which is impossible to demonstrate because a character - and pretty much anything fictional - is part of a Verse the moment it is shown, written about, told about or even thought about, depending on the media. And so, asserting that anything fictional can exist outside of all Verses is an unfalsifiable claim that can be dismissed. «In a particular wikia there could be only one definition of a given term.» If the term has been defined by on any page that is. Otherwise, everyone is free to found their interpretation on whichever definition they choose. «Also,what is your choice of definition doesn't matter ,you are saying as if everyone on this wikia has a definition of his/her own.Your comments literally seem like this whole wikia revolves around you but you are just going against the wikia.» Of course the definitions I use don't matter to the wiki, but they matter to the debate. It's important for debaters to provide the definitions they assign to certain words they use so that both parties can discuss the actual ideas rather than wasting time on arguing over the meaning behind the words. Last time I checked, I never proclaimed my definitions to be the only valid ones that everyone absolutely must use. I just gave mine so people know what I'm talking about when I use certain words that might mean something different to them. «You can't say that in author authority page the meaning of verse is different than that on the totallity connection page.» How so? Both pages have different creators and contributors who could all be using different definitions. «By the terms of wikia your arguments are falsified and the immunity of omnilock to author authority has been proved right.» I never tried to impose my views on the wiki, so I'm not breaking its rules. ---- @Nekron1 «Dear TheAlphaHD,» It's "AlphaTheHD", not "TheAlphaHD." «Don't you know on the same website can't have different definition for the exact same term.If it has then the website otself is contradictory.» It's very well possible for a community-based website that heavily relies on user contributions like wikis - especially the Superpower Wiki - to be self contradictory because different contributors can have different interpretations. «Leaving even that apart the word "Verse" truly means omniverse.The word omniverse was later replaced by all companies as Verse due to the controversies that arose due to using Omniverse as a term.Many believed that OMNI means all so the word omniverse refers to all marvel,dc,spawn, etc combined but some believed it to be what is in this wikia.So,instead all companies started addressing their respective omniverses as verses simply.» And? I don't see the relevance of this piece of information. Unless you consider companies as figures of authority over the definitions of the terms we use to describe fictional concepts and are presenting this as an argument in favour of your definition over mine, which would be an appeal to authority. «And your own definitions are not a matter of our concern. If you define horse as cow and cow as horce in the same place we can't accept that.It is your individual thinking.» I'm not asking you to accept it. I'm saying that applying your definitions to my arguments invalidates the counter-argument made because they're based on different definitions. «Even when God Swamp thing goes out of the entire omniverse it is written clearly in the comics as DCVERSE.» Yes, but he didn't exit the Verse, otherwise it wouldn't even be shown in the comics to begin with. «Your own definition prove that fictoin is. the whole franchise like dc and that a VERSE IS A "FICTIONAL WORLD", i.e,THE OMNIVERSE. When the word world came it automatically became the omniverse.» The word "world" has more than one definition, including "the material universe or all that exists; everything." the one that was intended. «Your own definitions prove that the Verse and fiction are two DIFFERENT things and that the Verse and OmniOmniverse are the same things and the verse is a part of the fiction as A FICTIONAL WORLD IS A PART OF THE FICTION.» No. According to my definitions, the Verse is the same thing as the fiction (the work of fiction or the collection of works of fiction associated with a particular character, television series, video game series, writer, etc.) but not the same thing as fiction (collection of all narratives or settings that are derived from imagination). Nor are Verse and omniverse the same thing as the omniverse is the collection of all universes, dimensions, timelines, etc. whereas the Verse is all that there is within a given fiction. And so, if things are shown/stated to exist beyond the omniverse, then said things are obviously not part of the omniverse, but still part of the Verse. In other words, the Verse is not part of the fiction, it is the fiction. «Now,due to the totallity connection point the point that omnilocks are immune to author authority have been proven right.» See my answer to Nekron2. «Now,if you say that the definitions only mean different on each page then what can we do?» For reasons stated above, it's possible for the "Verse" in Totality Connection to mean something different from the "Verse" in Author Authority. And the solution to the problem posed by your question is rather simple: ask the creator of Author Authority's page for their definition. However, with the inclusion of "controlling reality like an author controls a work of fiction" in Author Authority's capabilities, I lean towards my definition being the one they intended. «Now your own words "I am not listening... LaLaLaLaLaLaLaLa" should be applied to you only.» Not only are they not my words, but you're also taking the ones you were paraphrasing out of context. My actual words are "Sorry, but that's not how debates work. You have to defend your position with convincing argumentation, not by claiming that the opposition is wrong before plugging your ears and going "I DON'T HEAR YOU! LALALALALALALA..."" told to Nekron2 after they simply declared Omnipotence to be greater than Author Authority regardless of the arguments I'd make without backing up their assertion. I, as opposed to them, have yet to show myself unwilling to hear out the opposition's arguments.